3 ms·

Largely agree with your adds. However one point you mention I've had great contemplation over: > Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in gene

Largely agree with your adds. However one point you mention I've had great contemplation over: > Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. When we live in a world that is increasingly using simulations for verification instead of reality itself, it seems as it becomes an ever increasing attack surface for controlling and manipulating what reality and truth actually is. The scary quote "Science Academics" are largely publishing statements based on mathematical models that are probalistic or theoretical with no physical extant items. When the burden of verification is solely on the individual, yet the individual is increasingly pushed in the direction of having to believe things as facts rather than experiencing them, then it sort of compromises that integrity, no? It seems the only way to have certainty is to be a witness and have experience over a set of events, that is the only thing that can be understood to be true (and only to you), and that is what contributes to certainty. All else is belief and unknown risk to deception. tl;dr science is heading towards imaginary non-extant things that happen to predict physical things but they can only be verified non-physically and since certainty require physical experience then the security of the system is at risk of being corrupted. tl;dr;dr what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? Also interesting: > That's when the game becomes interesting. You can also have truths that are not verifiable etc. It all depends on what the participatns want to know. Can you expand on this? You're saying something incredibly poignant and I'd like to hear more.

closedloop129 4y ago
>what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts. The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math. The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the simulation itself. It's the end of 'scientific cooperation'. Why verify a simulation when you can make your own? >>It all depends on what the participants want to know. >Can you expand on this? I wouldn't call it poignant, but here you are: As you wrote "Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention." - there is a process that makes choices. Truth is a tool to reach the goals of that process. We don't care about the scientific method in itself. Most people don't need truths to reach their goals because there is kind of a market of facts. Some facts are just known, without scientific backing, and people can just choose to use them. When there is deception there is also cooperation. The misdirecting information is only there because somebody else wants to achieve something. Maybe it's easier to cooperate with them about their goals than handling the misinformation?
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  To your latter point, yes, and one may not be aware of the fact they are the useful idiot. It may even be degrees useful idiots. The fundamental issue is that there is a cost to deception that I reason is greater than the benefit to the ones gaining from the cooperation and execution of the competing trajectories of narrative control. It essentially breeds psychic cancer. It incentivized all the behavior that leads to distrust then inevitably chaos. So the only way to avoid that is no competing factions. How do we transition to a non game theoretic civilization? Can we achieve it without assimilating to silicon? And related to your points on truth which I agree with, is the classic Greek comparison between Techne and episteme. It translates also to understanding and applying facts demonstrating “actually getting it” vs just regurgitating the fact market. The Tao te Ching has some anecdotes on the danger of knowledge as it leads to people thinking they know something but all they really have is the ability to echo or parrot. I guess you need your messages delivered in a network one way or another. Thanks for the thoughts. Would enjoy hearing more from you if you’re on a discord or similar.
  - closedloop129 4y ago
    Thank you. I am not prepared to continue this outside of hn. How could I reach you later? Regarding the deception: We also decept ourselves. So even if you go silicon, how do you know that that silicon is without flaws?
    - pyinstallwoes 4y ago
      I can be reached at gentle.zone6594@fastmail.com - precisely re: silicon. One can never be sure about external systems outside the self it seems, and even that is potentially at mercy to whatever can manipulate the senses. However there is an increased risk of deception / corruption by introducing a universal thing that only 0.0001% or so know how it actually works or could build one end to end. It doesn’t necessarily mean to abandon silicon, but it does mean that it can’t ever be trusted. So designing systems around that and probably minimizing dependence. I can see this happening with “cold computation” that is very specific in purpose and low in cost. Something like the green array chips. But that does have the potential to swarm. All I know is that if silicon replicates it’s going to be in conflict with dna. It seems prudent for a dna based life form to stick to dna for truth. All else is risk of assimilation or some form of deception at large unable to be detected. Much more to unpack there though.

closedloop129 4y ago

>what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts. The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math. The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the simulation itself. It's the end of 'scientific cooperation'. Why verify a simulation when you can make your own? >>It all depends on what the participants want to know. >Can you expand on this? I wouldn't call it poignant, but here you are: As you wrote "Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention." - there is a process that makes choices. Truth is a tool to reach the goals of that process. We don't care about the scientific method in itself. Most people don't need truths to reach their goals because there is kind of a market of facts. Some facts are just known, without scientific backing, and people can just choose to use them. When there is deception there is also cooperation. The misdirecting information is only there because somebody else wants to achieve something. Maybe it's easier to cooperate with them about their goals than handling the misinformation?

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
To your latter point, yes, and one may not be aware of the fact they are the useful idiot. It may even be degrees useful idiots. The fundamental issue is that there is a cost to deception that I reason is greater than the benefit to the ones gaining from the cooperation and execution of the competing trajectories of narrative control. It essentially breeds psychic cancer. It incentivized all the behavior that leads to distrust then inevitably chaos. So the only way to avoid that is no competing factions. How do we transition to a non game theoretic civilization? Can we achieve it without assimilating to silicon? And related to your points on truth which I agree with, is the classic Greek comparison between Techne and episteme. It translates also to understanding and applying facts demonstrating “actually getting it” vs just regurgitating the fact market. The Tao te Ching has some anecdotes on the danger of knowledge as it leads to people thinking they know something but all they really have is the ability to echo or parrot. I guess you need your messages delivered in a network one way or another. Thanks for the thoughts. Would enjoy hearing more from you if you’re on a discord or similar.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  Thank you. I am not prepared to continue this outside of hn. How could I reach you later? Regarding the deception: We also decept ourselves. So even if you go silicon, how do you know that that silicon is without flaws?
  - pyinstallwoes 4y ago
    I can be reached at gentle.zone6594@fastmail.com - precisely re: silicon. One can never be sure about external systems outside the self it seems, and even that is potentially at mercy to whatever can manipulate the senses. However there is an increased risk of deception / corruption by introducing a universal thing that only 0.0001% or so know how it actually works or could build one end to end. It doesn’t necessarily mean to abandon silicon, but it does mean that it can’t ever be trusted. So designing systems around that and probably minimizing dependence. I can see this happening with “cold computation” that is very specific in purpose and low in cost. Something like the green array chips. But that does have the potential to swarm. All I know is that if silicon replicates it’s going to be in conflict with dna. It seems prudent for a dna based life form to stick to dna for truth. All else is risk of assimilation or some form of deception at large unable to be detected. Much more to unpack there though.